This video........is awesome.

[dj150888]

And NONE of them is a monkey, which kinda makes the vid linked to in the OP a load of crap (although I can see some merit in parts of it).

I reckon the guy in the video used the term "monkey" for effect, rather than accuracy. The sort of people who it is aimed at are the sort of anti-darwin types who possibly won't differentiate, in biological classification, between apes and monkies. If they accept the biological classification used to describe the difference between apes and monkies, they're accepting the classification that implies the relationship between man and ape....and everyone knows monkies throws faeces, so bang! Monkey is a more effective term.

 

[BassyBill]

I reckon the guy in the video used the term "monkey" for effect, rather than accuracy. The sort of people who it is aimed at are the sort of anti-darwin types who possibly won't differentiate, in biological classification, between apes and monkies. If they accept the biological classification used to describe the difference between apes and monkies, they're accepting the classification that implies the relationship between man and ape....and everyone knows monkies throws faeces, so bang! Monkey is a more effective term.

Well, yes, it's an appeal to people's emotional reaction to the term at the expense of accuracy.

 

[DwaynieAD]

Too complicated is absolutely right.

its only complicated cuz the monkeys make it complicated

 

[BassyBill]

its only complicated cuz the monkeys make it complicated

No, things got pretty complicated waaaaay before there were any monkeys.

 

[dj150888]

Well, yes, it's an appeal to people's emotional reaction to the term at the expense of accuracy.

And I think it does that without losing the underlying point, so I don't think the use of the term invalidates or undermines the video like you say.


Granted I still agree that its not terribly original.

 

[BassyBill]

And I think it does that without losing the underlying point, so I don't think the use of the term invalidates or undermines the video like you say.

That's where I'd respectfully disagree. I think that sacrificing accuracy purely to get some sort of emotional reactions DOES undermine the point that they're trying to make in this case. It makes it a lot easier for people to dismiss the video, when in fact the video does attempt to make some interesting observations.

I also think this is pretty much always true. If you want to make a sound argument, you have to do your best to treat your subject matter with integrity, and not be sucked into the temptation to make cheap shots because they score you easy points that don't really count.

 

[GrooveWarrior]

That video was lame. I know is hip to be an athiest right now, and I guess that's OK for some people.

If we are monkeys (or apes as it has been pointed out), why are there still monkeys and apes?

For the OP, to say that this is the ONLY explanation for our world, you really need to consider the overwhelming amount of research, historical evidence, and written record that gives a compelling argument for divine presence.

Don't worry guys I'm praying for all of you!!!

 

[dj150888]

The "If we are apes, why are there still apes" question has been answered a thousand times. The "evolved from apes" and our relation to modern apes is because we share a common ancestor, not that we evolved directly from apes in the current world.

I've yet to see a scientific argument or any historical evidence that doesn't quote the bible that compels me to believe in the idea of a divine presence. There is even less evidence for a "God" in the monotheistic sense.

You're entitled to believe what you wish, but the presentation of theism on scientific terms, rather than just faith terms always, in my experience, resorts to either pseudoscience or the use of the bible as a legitimate scientific source. I'm not going to tell anyone what to believe, but I, personally, would rather you didn't pray for me.

 

[dj150888]

That's where I'd respectfully disagree. I think that sacrificing accuracy purely to get some sort of emotional reactions DOES undermine the point that they're trying to make in this case. It makes it a lot easier for people to dismiss the video, when in fact the video does attempt to make some interesting observations.

I also think this is pretty much always true. If you want to make a sound argument, you have to do your best to treat your subject matter with integrity, and not be sucked into the temptation to make cheap shots because they score you easy points that don't really count.

I think its because we're interpreting the video as having different purposes. In my eyes, the video is nothing but a cheap shot and a bit of a laugh for the creator (of the video, not in a divine sense! ). If it was an actual study, presented as such, I'd expect full integrity and accuracy. From a video on the internet that, from what I can see, is supposed to be a bit of a laugh? I don't think its the sort of thing you're supposed to go through with a fine toothed comb, but rather the sort of thing that, for some, may make them ask the question for the first time and then seek further, more scientifically sound, study on the matter.

 

[colcifer]

***? This is like the Flying Spaghetti Monster: we already have a teacup; we don't need anymore populist, pseudo-philosophical memes floating around.

And would someone please fetch me a coat? The air is quite thin up here (I have a very tall pedestal) .

EDIT: And the reason there are still lower primates is the same reason Christine O'Donnell doesn't disqualify humans as intelligent life.

 

[jmain]

Double meh.

Guess I gotta go quad meh.

BTW, its a "theory". The Sun orbiting the Earth was a theory as well.

 

[BassyBill]

... we already have a teacup...

That'll be a teapot, then.

 

[BassyBill]

I think its because we're interpreting the video as having different purposes. In my eyes, the video is nothing but a cheap shot and a bit of a laugh for the creator (of the video, not in a divine sense! ). If it was an actual study, presented as such, I'd expect full integrity and accuracy. From a video on the internet that, from what I can see, is supposed to be a bit of a laugh? I don't think its the sort of thing you're supposed to go through with a fine toothed comb, but rather the sort of thing that, for some, may make them ask the question for the first time and then seek further, more scientifically sound, study on the matter.

Understood. But I think that if you want to poke fun, then you should use a very sharp stick. This one seems a bit blunt, for the reasons we've discussed.

 

[GrooveWarrior]

The "If we are apes, why are there still apes" question has been answered a thousand times. The "evolved from apes" and our relation to modern apes is because we share a common ancestor, not that we evolved directly from apes in the current world.

I've yet to see a scientific argument or any historical evidence that doesn't quote the bible that compels me to believe in the idea of a divine presence. There is even less evidence for a "God" in the monotheistic sense.

You're entitled to believe what you wish, but the presentation of theism on scientific terms, rather than just faith terms always, in my experience, resorts to either pseudoscience or the use of the bible as a legitimate scientific source. I'm not going to tell anyone what to believe, but I, personally, would rather you didn't pray for me.

I was being a bit tongue and cheek with the "why aren't there still apes" comment. My experience is that you find what you look for. If you don't want to find evidence for God, you won't find it. I'm not going to get into a discussion that will close a thread. I'm sure you believe what you do as much as I believe what I do. Also, I would hope that ANY argument for religion would quote the Bible. I could say that I've never seen any argument for evolution that didn't quote Darwin. By saying those things we are making obtuse generalizations.

I would encourage you, for the sake of a civil conversation, to watch the following video. A Yale grad student who set out to disprove the existence of Christ who has become one of the foremost experts in his life and Christianity. If nothing else, it will give you some perspective on some of the historical evidence Christians tend to believe.

 

[BassyBill]

That video was lame. I know is hip to be an athiest right now, and I guess that's OK for some people.

If we are monkeys (or apes as it has been pointed out), why are there still monkeys and apes?

For the OP, to say that this is the ONLY explanation for our world, you really need to consider the overwhelming amount of research, historical evidence, and written record that gives a compelling argument for divine presence.

Don't worry guys I'm praying for all of you!!!

Please don't make this about religion unless you particularly want the thread moved to the lobby. Nothing is stopping anyone from gaining an understanding of science and still believing in a "divine presence".

We're discussing the status of Homo sapiens in the light of what evidence we have about natural history here, and the fact of us being apes is not a matter of scientific controversy. The issue of faith is a separate matter entirely. Science is about considering evidence - faith is not, by its very definition.

EDIT And to answer your question - there are still apes because we haven't gone extinct yet.

I guess there are monkeys because some of them, at least, are natural survivors (tautological, but still valid).

 

[GregC]

I think its because we're interpreting the video as having different purposes. In my eyes, the video is nothing but a cheap shot and a bit of a laugh for the creator (of the video, not in a divine sense! ). If it was an actual study, presented as such, I'd expect full integrity and accuracy. From a video on the internet that, from what I can see, is supposed to be a bit of a laugh? I don't think its the sort of thing you're supposed to go through with a fine toothed comb, but rather the sort of thing that, for some, may make them ask the question for the first time and then seek further, more scientifically sound, study on the matter.

I see two issues. First, the way it was presented by the OP as the "only explanation for our world". Pretty lofty praise for what strikes me as a slapdash, off-the-cuff clip. No fault of the creator, but there you have it. Second, if this video makes some ask the question for the first time, they really must have been hiding under a very large rock.

 

[GrooveWarrior]

Please don't make this about religion unless you particularly want the thread moved to the lobby. Nothing is stopping anyone from gaining an understanding of science and still believing in a "divine presence".

We're discussing the status of Homo sapiens in the light of what evidence we have about natural history here, and the fact of us being apes is not a matter of scientific controversy. The issue of faith is a separate matter entirely. Science is about considering evidence - faith is not, by its very definition.

No, the OP stated that the video was the only explanation for our world. The video was clearly evolution based as opposed to creation based. I was simply pointing out that that there is another explanation for our world to a lot of people. I think you made the thread about homo sapiens and natural history, not the OP.

 

[dj150888]

Understood. But I think that if you want to poke fun, then you should use a very sharp stick. This one seems a bit blunt, for the reasons we've discussed.

On that, I'd have to agree. I think the point made in the video has been made much more strongly in the past.

I was being a bit tongue and cheek with the "why aren't there still apes" comment. My experience is that you find what you look for. If you don't want to find evidence for God, you won't find it. I'm not going to get into a discussion that will close a thread. I'm sure you believe what you do as much as I believe what I do. Also, I would hope that ANY argument for religion would quote the Bible. I could say that I've never seen any argument for evolution that didn't quote Darwin. By saying those things we are making obtuse generalizations.

I would encourage you, for the sake of a civil conversation, to watch the following video. A Yale grad student who set out to disprove the existence of Christ who has become one of the foremost experts in his life and Christianity. If nothing else, it will give you some perspective on some of the historical evidence Christians tend to believe.

I'll say one thing on the matter, if you want to discuss it further, we can take it to PM mate . Your assumption that I haven't found religion because I don't want to find it is wrong. Any further discussion, we'll have via PM, to save having the thread closed.

I see two issues. First, the way it was presented by the OP as the "only explanation for our world". Pretty lofty praise for what strikes me as a slapdash, off-the-cuff clip. No fault of the creator, but there you have it. Second, if this video makes some ask the question for the first time, they really must have been hiding under a very large rock.

Lots of very big rocks out there Greg. Many people will have heard of the theory of evolution and dismissed it without actually doing any investigation into what it means. Faith and/or indoctrination can sometimes be responsible for this.

 

[colcifer]

That'll be a teapot, then.

My bad.

 

[BassyBill]

No, the OP stated that the video was the only explanation for our world. The video was clearly evolution based as opposed to creation based. I was simply pointing out that that there is another explanation for our world to a lot of people. I think you made the thread about homo sapiens and natural history, not the OP.

That's kind of my point. The fact that people have "another explanation" doesn't change the fact of our status in natural history. And it's possible to believe in creation (and even live in it ) without denial of natural history up to and including our own species, as discovered by science. Any discussion of natural history is not a religious one - it's scientific.